|
P
I C T U R E O F T H E D
A Y
The
Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman
first published: October 7, 2004
revised: November 15, 2004
The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily
the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers
of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early
2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance
in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility
with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that
a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon
and exploded.
Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness
evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical
evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based
on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however,
each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the
no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash
of a 757.
|
Global
Hawk dressed up as AA. On that terrifying September
morning, if you had seen this plane rocketing
along at over 400 mph, would you be a little confused?
|
The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many
documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders.
Defenders of the official story have seized on this
issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence
of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists."
The Allure of the Unsolved Mystery
The question of what hit the Pentagon has remained
a source of intense interest and debate for almost three
years now, overshadowing many other issues of the 9/11/01
attack. The controversy has thrived in the evidence
vacuum created by official actions in the wake of the
attack, which included the following:
- Minutes after the attack, the FBI seized from businesses
adjacent to the Pentagon videos that likely recorded
the event.
- On the day of the attack, Pentagon personnel participated
in a rapid mop-up of the crime scene, moving and removing
evidence before it could be documented.
- In the weeks following the attack, authorities
controlled the crime scene, destroying or suppressing
nearly all the physical evidence inside the building.
This left primarily two kinds of evidence: eyewitness
reports consistent with the crash of a 757, and post-crash
photographs taken by passers-by showing neither large
aircraft debris nor an impact damage pattern expected
from such a crash. The ambiguous and seemingly contradictory
evidence made the event a kind of Rorschach, spawning
many competing theories but offering no basis for definitive
conclusions.
The mystery of the attack has lured researchers into
endless debates, much to the detriment of public outreach
around easily proved issues. Such issues include aspects
of the Pentagon attack other than the question of what
hit it. For example:
* The portion of the Pentagon targeted was mostly
unoccupied due to a renovation program.
* The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver
to hit that portion of the building rather than the
part housing high-level officials.
* The alleged pilot of Flight 77 was not competent to
pilot a Cessna, let alone pilot a 757 through a maneuver
that may have exceeded the skills of even the best test
pilot.
History of the Issue
The Pentagon no-757-crash theory first came to prominence
in early 2002 when French author Thierry Meyssan published
"The Frightening Fraud," which theorized that
a truck bomb was responsible for the damage to the Pentagon,
and then "Le Pentagate," which held that the
damage was produced by a missile. These well-marketed
books sold millions of copies in Europe. Meyssan's analysis
is notable for wild inaccuracies in characterizing the
damage to the Pentagon's facade. He suggests the impact
hole was 15-18 feet in diameter, and that there was
no damage on either side of that hole. That description
completely ignores the first floor damage, in which
walls were punctured over a width of about 90 feet,
a fact that is easily determined from analysis of photographs
available on the web in early 2002.
Meyssan also states that the piece of hull photographed
by Mark Faram does not correspond to any part of a Boeing
757, when in fact it matches the hull just aft of the
forward starboard door, as shown by Dick Eastman.
Meyssan's "Le Pentagate" was published shortly
after five frames of video from a Pentagon security
camera were leaked. Meyssan and other theorists jumped
on the fact that the first frame seems to show a much
smaller plane than a 757 approaching the Pentagon, without
asking if the video frames were authentic. In fact they
bear clear signs of forgery.
Meyssan's conclusions were echoed by Gerard Holmgren,
who published the lengthy Physical and Mathematical
Analysis of the Pentagon Crash in October of 2002. Like
Meyssan, Holmgren relied on photographs in which obstructions
hide large regions of first-floor damage. Holmgren's
unwieldy manifesto-sized analysis was widely embraced
by no-757-crash theorists.
The sloppy analysis of Meyssan and certain other Pentagon
researchers (such as their reliance on photographs in
which jets of fire retardant foam and smoke obscure
damaged areas) leaves these researchers, and by association
the entire 9/11 Truth Movement, open to attack by detractors.
Other work by skeptics of the 757 crash was far more
careful. In mid-2002, an anonymous author produced a
detailed damage assessment in an article concluding
that the damage was consistent with the crash of a large
plane, but not of a 757.
In early 2003 Dick Eastman developed a "two plane"
theory, which holds that the damage to the Pentagon
was done by a small killer jet, such as an F-16, while
Flight 77 merely appeared to crash, clearing the facade
behind a pyrotechnic display and overflying the Pentagon
in a kind of magician's trick. Eastman was unique among
the no-757-crash theorists in at least attempting to
accommodate much of the eyewitness evidence.
In September of 2003, I assisted Jeff Strahl in developing
a slide presentation which concluded that "whatever
struck the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757." This
talk, which borrowed from the work of Eric Hufschmid
and said anonymous author, further popularized the notion
that a 757 was not involved in the attack.
In early 2004, Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell added
yet another variation to the mix of no-757-crash theories
in The Five-Sided Fantasy Island, advancing a scenario
that combines Eastman's Flight 77 overflight theory
with the idea that demolition charges were used to produce
the damage to the Pentagon.
In late 2004 two new videos promoting no-757-crash
theory appeared. Both combine slick production values
with highly selective presentations of evidence. In
Plane Site, a DVD, advances the no-757-impact along
with the Building 6 explosion myth and highly dubious
theories that the towers were hit by objects other than
Flights 11 and 175. The obvious propagandistic quality
of these pieces was one factor in persuading me to re-examine
my own endorsement of the no-757-crash theory.
Ignoring the Eyewitness Evidence
Proponents of the no-757-crash theory have tended to
minimize the many eyewitness accounts that a 757-like
aircraft flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many simply
cherry-pick one or two accounts that seem to indicate
a much smaller plane, and ignore the larger body of
eyewitness evidence.
This selective presentation of witness accounts is
exemplified by a tendency to quote only a single phrase
from a single witness: Mike Walter's use of "a
cruise missile with wings." In context, it's clear
that Walter was only using the cruise missile description
metaphorically:
"I looked out my window and I saw this plane,
this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought,
'This doesn't add up, it's really low'. I mean it was
like a cruise missile with wings."
Another eyewitness account frequently cited as evidence
that the attack plane was not an airliner is that of
air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that
he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of
us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was
a military plane."
That the controllers observed a plane being flown in
a manner not normal for jetliner does not mean the plane
was not a jetliner. Simple calculations show that the
spiral dive attack maneuver was well within the capabilities
of a Boeing 757. In fact, the body of eyewitness evidence
provides almost no support for the no-757 theories,
but does indicate that the event involved more than
a simple plane crash, such as a sharp detonation wave
not explainable by the crash of a jetliner. Once again,
such substantial evidence that contradicts the official
story has been eclipsed by the no-757-crash theory.
The "Physical Evidence" Case
Many apparent features of the crash that are documented
by the photographs of the crash site -- and especially
by photos taken before the overhanging section collapsed
-- seem to support an overwhelming case against the
crash of a 757. These features include the following.
1. The lawn shows no signs of gouging from a 757's
low-hanging engines, despite eyewitness claims that
the plane hit the ground before the facade.
2. The impact hole dimensions are not large enough to
accommodate the entire profile of a 757.
3. The lawn shows almost no signs of crash debris immediately
following the crash.
4. Photos from inside and outside the building during
the recovery operation show very little aircraft debris.
5. Damaged columns remain standing where dense parts
of the plane, such as the starboard engine, would have
hit.
6. Unscored limestone and unbroken windows are visible
in areas of the facade where the outer wings and vertical
tail section of a 757 would have hit.
7. There are obstacles in the plane's alleged flight
path, such as cable spools.
This list is far from exhaustive. Many other features
are often cited as evidence against a 757 crash, such
as the positions of downed lamp-posts, the orientation
of the damaged generator, and the position and shape
of the C-ring punch-out hole. The number of no-757-crash
arguments based on these features, and the logical independence
of many of them, seem to many to constitute an overwhelming
cumulative case against the crash of a 757. Whereas
a deductive case is only as strong as its weakest argument,
a cumulative case is as strong as the sum of its arguments.
However, a cumulative case may appear strong without
actually being so if it is composed entirely of arguments
that evaporate under scrutiny. Let's examine four of
the more persuasive arguments, which I've given the
following labels:
* The missing wings and tail
* The vanishing jetliner
* The incorrect impact imprint
* The obstacle dodge
The Missing Wings and Tail
This argument, based on features 1, 2, and 3, holds
that since the outer expanses of the wings and most
of the vertical tail section of a 757 could not have
fit through the facade's impact punctures, they should
have been visible in the post-crash photographs of the
building's exterior.
The argument makes the error of assuming that large
pieces of the wings and tail should have remained intact.
A crash study suggests that the over-300-mph impact
of a jetliner with the Pentagon's heavy masonry facade
would have reduced the entire aircraft -- and certainly
its relatively light wings and tail -- to confetti.
Another error in this argument is its implicit assumption
that the photographs of the Pentagon's lawn show it
to be debris-free. In fact, the photographs have pronounced
foreshortening of regions near the building, which,
together with variations in the terrain, may hide significant
debris fields.
The Vanishing Jetliner
This argument, based on features 3 and 4, holds that
since there are no photographs showing large aircraft
debris at the Pentagon, no jetliner could have crashed
there. Recognizable pieces that were photographed, such
as landing gear and engine parts, are few enough that
they could have been planted.
This argument makes the error of the negative proof:
the lack of evidence showing something's existence is
taken as proof of its non-existence. The seeming disappearance
of the 80-ton plane becomes much less mysterious when
one considers two facts.
- As noted above, in similar crashes, the entire
aircraft is converted to small confetti, most of which
would be unrecognizable.
- There are few publicly available photographs of
the interior of the building shortly after the crash.
FEMA's investigative team was not allowed on the site
until after all the debris had been removed.
The Incorrect Impact Imprint
This argument, based on features 5 and 6, holds that,
since there is no impact imprint of a 757 on the Pentagon's
facade, no such plane could have crashed there. In a
crash at such a speed (over 300 mph) the wings and tail
had too much momentum to deviate much from their trajectory
even as the plane crashed into the facade. Therefore,
even these relatively light parts should have at least
scored the facade's rather soft limestone facing, and
perhaps broken windows.
Even admitting that there are uncertainties about just
how much damage the wing ends and tail of a 757 should
have done to the Pentagon's facade, this argument is
difficult to reconcile with the simple crash of a 757
-- at least of an intact 757. However, if the wing ends
and tail were destroyed before impact, they might not
have left impact impressions. That possibility is explored
in the Unexamined Explanations section.
The Obstacle Dodge
This argument, based on feature 7, holds that the flightpath
determined by downed light poles and eyewitness accounts
takes the plane too low to have cleared obstacles near
the building, such as several cable spools.
The spool that appears most problematic for the plane's
supposed flightpath is the large upright one nearest
the building. In most photographs it appears to be just
a few feet from the building. However, appearances are
deceiving given the foreshortening in the photographs.
One article supporting the no-757-crash theory estimates
that the large spool is about 28 feet from the facade.
It also states that the diameter of the spool is 6 feet,
6 inches.
Given those coordinates and dimensions, and assuming
the plane's trajectory was such that it was losing one
foot of altitude for every ten feet of distance traveled,
then the bottom of the plane's fuselage could have cleared
the spool by a foot and crashed into the facade at an
elevation of five feet, placing the bottoms of the engines
at ground level. Contentions that turbulence from such
a near miss would have toppled the spool are difficult
to evaluate without knowing the weight of the spool,
whether it was secured to the ground, and whether the
spools rolled following the crash.
Unexamined Explanations
The last two arguments in the previous section illustrate
just how easy it is to accept a pre-conceived conclusion
from evidence while failing to consider other equally
plausible explanations. I became convinced that the
attack plane was not a 757 based primarily on those
two arguments, and only later re-evaluated my conclusions
in light of other possibilities.
An alternative explanation for the incorrect impact
imprint consistent with the crash of a 757 was proposed
by French researcher Eric Bart. He suggests that the
jetliner was progressively shredded by explosives starting
just as its nose was beginning to impact the wall. This
theory explains the lack of impact impressions of the
jetliner's extremities, since they would have been reduced
to confetti before impact. It also accounts for the
large punctures in the facade, since the remains of
the plane's heaviest portions could have retained enough
momentum to breach the walls and enter the building.
Bart's theory may sound far-fetched, and some detractors
have compared it to the aggressively promoted idea that
the South Tower was hit by a pod-equipped cargo jet
that fired a missile just before impact. However, the
comparison is not deserved. Whereas the pod-plane idea
is based on imaginative interpretations of artifacts
in blurry video images, Bart's theory reconciles the
lack of imprint of the tail and wing ends with the overwhelming
eyewitness evidence that a jetliner flew into the Pentagon
and exploded. Several eyewitnesses even recalled details
that seem to be explainable only by the plane being
shredded before impact.
Bart's theory is consistent with the crash of Flight
77 at the Pentagon, but not with the official story
that it was hijacked by Muslim terrorists, since it
assumes the plane was prepared prior to the attack.
Other researchers, such as Stanley and Russell, have
proposed that the Pentagon attack was engineered to
make it appear that a 757 crashed when none had. Bart's
theory reverses this, suggesting that the crash of a
757 was engineered to make it appear that no such plane
had crashed.
The apparent motive for such a deception will likely
escape 9/11 skeptics on both sides of the controversy
about what hit the Pentagon. Most adherents to no-757-crash
theories have ignored Bart's theory and the body of
eyewitness evidence supporting it. Most opponents of
no-757-crash theories have not looked closely enough
at the impact damage pattern to see a problem reconciling
it with the simple crash of a 757. This is exactly the
conflict that the engineered crash may have been designed
to create. Experts at psychological operations, the
perpetrators could have anticipated that skeptics would
divide into two groups: those persuaded by eyewitness
evidence that a 757 had crashed, and those persuaded
by physical evidence that one had not. The ongoing controversy
could then be exploited by the perpetrators to several
ends:
- to keep the skeptics divided
- to divert skeptics' resources from other more productive
lines of inquiry
- to provide a bizarre-sounding theory with which
to tar the entire 9/11 Truth Movement
If you accept the premise that the crash of a 757 was
engineered to create seemingly contradictory bodies
of evidence in order to seed truth-obfuscating conflicts,
it is easy to explain crash-site anomalies beyond the
facade impact imprint. For example, the spool that is
arguably a problem for the plane's approach could have
been stood up immediately after the crash to bolster
the anticipated no-757-crash theory. While this may
seem far-fetched, it is much less far-fetched than suppositions
of no-757-crash theorists, such as that the downing
of the highway lamp-posts was engineered independent
of the attack plane.
Propaganda
In 2004 two videos promoting the no-757-crash theory
were released: the P3nt4gon Str!ke Flash animation by Darren Williams, and the
In Plane Site DVD by David von Kleist. While different
in format, both share the following characteristics:
- Both cherry-pick and de-contextualize eyewitness
statements while ignoring the eyewitness consensus
that a jetliner crashed.
- Both advance several of the faulty interpretations
of photographic evidence that I debunk in the Pentagon
Attack Errors section of 911review.com.
- Both use a kind of shock-and-awe presentation style
to engage people emotionally rather than critically.
Whereas the much shorter P3nt4gon Str!ke functions
primarily by selective and misleading presentation of
evidence, In Plane Site presents patently ludicrous
claims as fact. For example, von Kleist quotes a supposed
expert from the Environmental Assessment Association
as saying:
"Looking at the total weight of this aircraft
in conjunction with its velocity, the Pentagon should
have been reduced to the thickness of a pancake."
The logical fallacies, misrepresentations of evidence,
and propagandistic style of In Plane Site and P3nt4gon Str!ke contrast with a far more rational approach by
other videos, websites, and books by 9/11 skeptics that
use physical evidence to refute elements of the official
story. Yet the no-757-crash videos have enjoyed a wider
exposure than the other far more credible efforts. Snopes.com,
an urban-legend debunking website, provides four links
to the P3nt4gon Str!ke animation on its Hunt the Boeing!
page. Why are apologists for the official story promoting
this video (if in a backhanded way)? Perhaps because
the no-757-crash theory is more effective at bolstering
the official story than undermining it.
An Opening For Attackers
Before 2004, the mainstream and alternative media were
virtually free of any mention of the existence of a
community of skeptics challenging the core tenets of
official story of '9/11'. While there were numerous
reports of warnings of the attacks, there was only minimal
coverage of the spectacular failures of the air defense
network, and there was virtually no mention of the physical
evidence of the demolition of Building 7 and the Twin
Towers. That changed on May 26, 2004, when Amy Goodman
interviewed David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now about
his book The New Pearl Harbor on the show The New Pearl
Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush
Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks. Although
Griffin mentions an array of compelling evidence that
the attack was an inside job, the majority of the interview
revolves around the issue of what hit the Pentagon,
as Chip Berlet, whom Goodman invited on the program
to debate Griffin, zeroes in on the weakest part of
The New Pearl Harbor. As a result, almost no time is
spent discussing the much stronger parts of Griffin's
argument.
On September 13, The Nation magazine published Executive
Secrecy: Conspiracy or Failure? by CIA agent Robert
Baer. Baer ridicules "conspiracy theories"
that 9/11/01 was an inside job, suggesting that this
"monstrous proposition" and Griffin's choice
to "recycle some of the wilder conspiracy theories"
is driven by the evasions and lies of the Bush administration.
First on Baer's list of these wilder theories is "that
the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than by American
Airlines Flight 77."
On October 7, The Washington Post published Conspiracy
Theories Flourish on the Internet, which describes P3nt4gon Str!ke and its popularization in some detail, and then
uses it to deride 9/11 "conspiracy theories."
The article makes no mention of other areas of research
by skeptics of the official story. Instead, it implies
that the idea that "something other than a commercial
airliner hit the Pentagon" is the only proposition
advanced by skeptics to challenge the official story.
On November 8, The New York Times published A Hidden
Story Behind Sept. 11? One Man's Ad Campaign Says So,
to describe the campaign of millionaire Jimmy Walter
to publicize skepticism about the official story of
'9/11'. The second sentence of the article introduces
Walter's suggestion that "no plane flew into the
Pentagon," and the third sentence that Building
7 was "detonated from within." While the striking
similarity of the implosion of Building 7 to other building
implosions produced by controlled demolition is one
of the most compelling pieces of physical evidence that
the 9/11/01 attack was an inside job, the juxtaposition
of the idea that Building 7 was detonated next to the
idea that no plane crashed into the Pentagon is an effective
tool for discrediting the former. The New York Times
article provides no links to the video evidence of the
demolition of Building 7, such as that on wtc7.net,
but it gives an explanation for the collapse by fire
science professor Glenn P. Corbett -- an explanation
that people who have not seen the videos are likely
to accept.
On November 10, Air America broadcast a segment featuring
David Von Kleist, producer of In Plane Site, which promoted
the two central memes of his video: the Pentagon no-757-crash
idea and the South Tower pod-plane idea. Because the
no-757-crash idea is taken seriously by a substantial
portion of serious 9/11 researchers -- an acceptance
not shared by the pod-plane idea -- disinformationists
can use the Pentagon no-jetliner idea to leverage the
more ridiculous WTC crash theories, such as pod-planes,
missile attacks, holograms, etc.
With these and other articles and broadcasts, millions
of people are being introduced to the idea that the
attack was an inside job via theories that have no support
in evidence, sound ludicrous, and are easily discredited.
Unfortunately, first impressions are difficult to reverse.
How the Issue Plays
I frequently encounter the opinion that, regardless
of the errors underlying the Pentagon no-757-crash theory,
its recent popularization and press attention can only
be helpful to the cause of truth exposure because it
gets more people to question the official story and
explore evidence contradicting other facets of that
story. Indeed, many active skeptics were introduced
to the issue through material on the Pentagon crash.
However, it is more likely that the prominence of the
no-757-crash theory will damage the cause, particularly
as it reaches a wider audience less inclined to research
the issue. People introduced to 9/11 skepticism through
the no-757-crash theory will either be stimulated to
examine evidence that the attack was an inside job,
or will continue to ignore such ideas as the delusions
of conspiracy theorists. The vast majority of such people
will likely fall into the second group for several reasons.
- The mainstream press is casting the no-757-crash
theory as a loony construct of conspiracy theorists,
and representative of all 9/11 skepticism.
- The theory sounds ludicrous to most people who
encounter it for the first time.
- The videos promoting it use faulty analysis and
manipulative techniques that will alienate the discerning
viewer.
- The popular videos and supporting websites are
dead-ends, providing no links to responsible 9/11
research sites.
My conclusion is borne out by the evidence. According
to the Washington Post article, millions of people have
viewed P3nt4gon Str!ke. Yet the visits to investigative
websites, such as those listed on 911truth.org, have
not skyrocketed into hundreds of thousands of visits
per day.
Some have suggested that, regardless of the relative
factual merits, similar dynamics would be in play if
the Twin Towers' demolition was being promoted with
the same vigor as the Pentagon no-757-crash theory.
Isn't the idea that the Twin Towers were demolished
with explosives as incredible as the idea that no jetliner
crashed at the Pentagon? Yes and no. There is a huge
psychological barrier to accepting the conclusion that
controlled demolition brought down the towers, and that
conclusion supposes a conspiracy far beyond the 19 hijackers.
However, there are fundamental qualitative differences.
- The no-757-crash theory supposes that something
asserted by the official story and witnessed by hundreds
of people (the crash of a jetliner) didn't happen;
whereas the towers' demolition supposes that something
beyond the official story and supported by witness
accounts (explosive detonations) did happen. Using
the JFK assassination as an analogy, the no-757-crash
theory is like saying that Kennedy was not shot at
all, whereas the towers' demolition is like saying
that there were additional gunmen beyond Lee Harvey
Oswald.
- The no-757-crash theory requires accounting for
a missing Flight 77 and the fates of its passengers
and crew; whereas the towers' demolition requires
no additional theories to account for the fates of
Flights 11 and 175.
- Millions of people are aware, if subconsciously,
of evidence of the demolition of the Twin Towers,
such as the fine dust that blanketed lower Manhattan,
and the explosive nature of the collapses; whereas
no one has direct evidence that something other than
a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. The lack of photographic
evidence that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon should
not be construed as evidence that none did.
Conclusion
The idea that no 757-sized airliner crashed into the
Pentagon on 9/11/01 is attractive to many skeptics because
it contradicts a fundamental tenet of the official story,
is supported by common-sense interpretations of photographs
of the crash scene, and provides an explanation for
the suspicious lack of physical evidence supporting
the official account. Additionally, there is a substantial
body of literature by no-757-crash theorists that appears
to thoroughly examine the evidence. The complexity of
some of this analysis may discourage other skeptics
from evaluating the evidence for themselves.
As I show in this essay, many common errors in no-757-crash
theories are easily exposed. Most of the no-757-crash
arguments evaporate when scrutinized with attention
to empirical data about the behavior of airframes in
high-speed crashes, and the geometry of the Pentagon
crash scene and vantage points of post-crash photographs.
The remaining arguments are easily disposed of by assuming
the crash was engineered, consistent with the presumed
motives of the perpetrators to discredit the skeptics.
Conversely, the abundant eyewitness accounts provide
strong evidence for the crash of a 757 or similar aircraft.
In recent high-profile attacks on the work of 9/11
skeptics, defenders of the official story have consistently
focused on the no-757-crash theory as indicative of
the gullibility and incompetence of the 9/11 "conspiracy
theorists." Researchers including myself have contributed
to this vulnerability by endorsing this theory without
either weighing all the available evidence (such as
the eyewitness accounts) or considering less obvious
interpretations for the paucity of physical evidence
of a 757 crash. The Pentagon crash is an intriguing
area of research because of its many unresolved mysteries.
The promotion of theories about what hit the Pentagon
in highly visible media do not advance that research
but instead provide our detractors with ammunition with
which to discredit us, and eclipse easily established
and highly incriminating facts such as where the Pentagon
was hit, the astounding failures to defend the 9/11
targets, and the obvious controlled demolition of Building
7.
|
Recall the Election Day exit polls
that suggested John Kerry had won a convincing victory?
The media readily dismissed those polls and little has
been heard about them since.
Many Americans, however, were suspicious. Although
President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes in the official,
tallied vote count, exit polls
had projected a margin of victory of 5 million votes
for Kerry. This unexplained 8 million vote discrepancy
between the election night exit polls and the official
count should raise a Chinese May Day of red flags.
The U.S. voting system is more vulnerable to manipulation
than most Americans realize. Technologies such as electronic
voting machines provide no confirmation that votes are
counted as cast, and highly partisan election officials
have the power to suppress votes and otherwise distort
the count.
Exit polls are highly accurate. They remove most of
the sources of potential polling error by identifying
actual voters and asking them immediately afterward
who they had voted for.
The reliability of exit polls is so generally accepted
that the Bush administration helped pay for them during
recent elections in Georgia, Belarus and Ukraine. Testifying
before the House Committee on International Relations
Dec. 7, John Tefft, deputy assistant secretary of state
for European and Eurasian affairs, explained that the
Bush administration funded exit polls because they were
one of the "ways that would help to expose large-scale
fraud." Tefft pointed to the discrepancy between
exit polls and the official vote count to argue that
the Nov. 22 Ukraine election was stolen.
Grasping at explanations
Last November in the United States, as in Ukraine,
the discrepancy between the presidential exit polls
and the tallied count was far beyond the margin for
error. At the time, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky
International, the two companies hired to do the polling
for the National Election Pool (a consortium of the
nation's five major broadcasters and the Associated
Press), didn't provide an explanation for how this happened.
They promised, however, that a full explanation would
be forthcoming.
On Jan. 19, on the eve of the inauguration, Edison
and Mitofsky released their report, "Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky
Election System 2004," which generated headlines such
as MSNBC's "Exit Polls Prove That Bush Won." But,
the report does nothing of the sort. [...]
The report states that the difference between exit
polls and official tallies was far too great to be explained
by chance ("sampling error"), and that a systematic
bias is implicated. [...]
The exit polls were based on
more than 70,000 confidential questionnaires completed
by randomly selected voters as they exited the polling
place. The overall margin of error should have been
under 1 percent. But the
official result deviated from the poll projections by
more than 5 percent—a statistical impossibility.
The pollsters report that the precincts were appropriately
chosen for sampling, in that the aggregated official
results from the sampled precincts accurately reflected
the official statewide ballot counts.
In saying this, Mitofsky and Edison vindicate a key
piece of their methodology—the representativeness
of their samples. If the fault indeed lies with the
exit polls, the range of possibilities for error is
therefore narrowed. [...]
On average, across the country, the
President did 6.5 percent better in the official vote
count, relative to Kerry, than the exit polls projected.
This admission further narrows the range of possibilities.
If the polling data are accurate, the only remaining
possibilities are "non-response bias" (i.e., Bush voters
disproportionately did not participate in the exit polls)
and/or errors in the official tally.[...]
[T]hey say, "precincts with touch screen and optical
voting have essentially the same error rates as those
using punch-card systems."
Indeed, they do. But this fact
merely suggests that all three of these systems may
have been corrupted. Indeed, there is little question
about problems associated with both punch card systems
(recall the Florida debacle in 2000) and mechanical
voting machines, which are generally unreliable, vulnerable
to tinkering and leave no paper trail. [...]
Notably, Mitofsky and Edison unsucessfully try to explain
away the fact that, according to their data, only
in precincts that used old-fashioned, hand-counted paper
ballots did the official count and the exit polls fall
within the normal sampling margin of error.
Further, data that are underplayed in the report provide
support for the hypothesis that the election was stolen.
[...] |
Thanks to Mr. Bush's
meddling in Lebanon, and his financial support of the
"opposition party" in Beirut, made up mainly of Falangist
Maronites and a few dissident Druze, there may be a
return to civil sectarian war.
What Mr. Bush and the U.S. media is not telling you,
nor are the Falangists who are constantly being interviewed
on American TV, is that the majority of Lebanese (who
are Shi'a) want the Syrians to stay in Lebanon. They
know the Syrians helped stop the disastrous civil war
that wrecked Lebanon and they do not want a return to
that sectarian strife.
The Syrian presence helped to mollify those, and to
stop those, who wanted this internecine strife to begin
again between the Maronites (who would be supported
by Israel, again as in 1982), the Muslims (especially
the Shi'a who are the majority of Lebanese), the Sunni,
the Orthodox, the Catholics and the Druze.
The Shi'a, who live primarily in the South, do not
want the Syrians to leave because this would open the
door to another Israeli invasion or the Israeli support
of a Maronite minority that wishes again to take over
Lebanon (as the Gemeyal family did in the 1980s). [...]
Interestingly, because they are under the influence
of Washington and Bush, the Saudi government has joined
in the chorus asking the Syrians to leave Lebanon. [...]
There is more going on under the curtain than on top;
with Bush being the chief meddler in world affairs.
Bush is up to his old tricks, making more enemies for
America so that the can say, "We are in danger."
It's true, we are in danger, but who
put us there?
None other than King George and his neo-cons who would
not understand another culture if it hit them in the
face; but just think of it, plain Iraqi citizens are
hitting us in the face and Bush still doesn't get it,
but our thousands of killed and wounded troops got it
and understand this is a losing war in Iraq. It will
be a losing war in Lebanon as well, for America and
for Israel if they are not careful.
To add to this complicated situation, Hezbollah, which
is a respected part of the Lebanese government, but
is constantly under attack by Bush and his lying friends
as being "a terrorist organization" - is now saying
that they prefer the Syrians stay in Lebanon for the
sake of national stability. In fact, the Hezbollah leaders,
under Dr. Nasrullah, are calling for a pro-Syrian rally
to counter those who want the Syrians out. [...]
We must also remember that the "opposition party" demonstrators
had all their signs made in English - obviously playing
to the American and Israeli audiences. One must ask
how these people can stay home from work for days at
a time, take to the streets - who is paying their bills,
who is feeding them, who is providing them with toilet
facilities - just who is supporting them with all this
financial and political infrastructure. I am of the
opinion, as are other Middle Eastern observers, that
this is not a "spontaneous demonstration" at all, but
a well-planned attempted at a putsch against the legitimate
Lebanese government - orchestrated in Washington, DC
and Tel Aviv. [...]
If the Falangists and their Israeli allies take over
in Lebanon, you will have a civil war, with the Falangist/Israeli
faction introducing Israeli torture techniques and brutality
beyond what the Syrians may have done. Just ask the
prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanmo who suffered under
the Israeli advising of the Americans in these prisons.
[...]
Dr. Sam Hamod is an expert on the Middle East; he
has written extensively on Lebanon, the Shi'a of Lebanon
and Iraq and on Israel under Sharon for various newspapers,
ezines, websites and has appeared on TV and radio to
bring out the truth of the region. Before the U.S. invasion
of Iraq, he predicted the U.S. would be mired down in
Iraq, worse than in Viet Nam; it has all come to pass.
His fears of a civil war in Lebanon are real, and supported
by other experts such as Robert Fisk (UK) and members
of the U.S. State Department (past and present). Dr.
Hamod edits, www.todaysalternativenews.com . |
BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip - With
the deafening explosion of a tank shell in a strawberry
patch, Maryam and Kamel Ghaben, a Palestinian farming
couple, lost three of their sons, a grandson and a nephew
- all children and young teenagers.
Israeli soldiers had aimed
at a Palestinian rocket squad, but witnesses say the
militants were gone by the time the shell hit the youngsters,
ages 10 to 16, who were helping with the harvest.
"Sadness will never leave our hearts," says
the Ghabens' oldest son, Ghassan, 35, who was first
on the scene and found his boy Rajeh, 10, among the
dead.
Some 65 miles away, in Jerusalem, Arnold Roth wrestles
with the death of his daughter Malka, 15, killed by
a suicide bomber in a Sbarro pizza parlor, and tries
to help his other six children through the trauma. "The
children have a deep sadness, all of them," he
says.
The Ghaben boys died in the Gaza Strip in January,
shortly before Israel and the Palestinians declared
a truce. Malka Roth was one of seven children, ages
2 to 16, killed in the August 2001 bombing.
They are among 514
Palestinians and 97 Israelis
16 or younger killed during the bloody 4 1⁄2 years
since the latest flare-up of violence between Palestinians
and Israelis began in September 2000, according
to an Associated Press count. [...]
Working from interviews with hospital officials, victim
support groups, human-rights monitors and its own daily
coverage of the fighting, AP found about
one-third of the Palestinian youngsters were killed
by Israeli gunfire in stone-throwing incidents. The
others were hit by stray bullets at homes, on their
way to and from school or while hanging around gunmen,
or died in Israeli air strikes. [...]
The Palestinians accuse the Israeli army of using
excessive force, including random shooting in densely
populated areas and firing on stone-throwers who don't
endanger soldiers' lives. The army says Palestinian
militants launch attacks from densely populated areas,
inviting retaliation, and put children in the line of
fire as pawns in the battle for public opinion.
"We do not fire on children,"
said Lt. Col. Dotan Razili, deputy commander of the
Israeli army's southern brigade. "This is
not a classic war where two armies battle it out in
some no man's land. We engage
them in civilian populated areas. When children are
getting killed, it's because they are caught in the
crossfire." [...] |
WASHINGTON -- More than three
years after installing a pro-U.S.
government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain
opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming
a narcotics state, a presidential report said Friday.
The report said the area in
Afghanistan devoted to poppy cultivation last year set
a record of more than 510,000 acres, more than triple
the figure for 2003. Opium poppy is the raw material
for heroin.
The Afghan narcotics situation "represents an
enormous threat to world stability," the report
said.
It listed opium production at 5,445 tons, 17 times
more than second-place Myanmar. [...] |
Record deficits, colossal debt
and no clear plan for digging itself out. If the U.S.
sinks, it will take Canada down with it.
David Walker can see the future, and it scares the hell
out of him.
[...] Walker isn't a lobbyist or an activist, he's
an accountant. His title is comptroller general of the
United States, which makes him the head auditor for
the most important and powerful government in the world.
And he's desperately trying to get a message out to
anyone who'll listen: the United
States of America's public finances are a shambles.
They're getting rapidly worse. And if something major
isn't done soon to solve the country's intractable budget
problems, the world will face an economic shakeup unlike
anything ever seen before.
Seated in his wood-panelled office in downtown Washington,
Walker measures his words, trying to walk the fine line
between raising an alarm and fostering panic. He
cringes when he hears prominent economists warning about
a financial "Armageddon," but he makes no
bones about the fact the situation is dire. "I
don't like using words that are overly inflammatory,"
he says, leaning forward in his chair. "At the
same time, I think it is critically important that the
American people, as well as their elected representatives,
get a better understanding of just how serious our situation
is."
THE NUMBERS are staggering --
a US$43-trillion hole in America's public finances that's
getting worse every day. And the stakes are almost
inconceivable for a generation of politicians and voters
raised in relative prosperity, who've never known severe
economic hardship. But that plush North American lifestyle
to which we've all grown accustomed has been bought
on credit, and the bill is rapidly nearing its due date.
If the United States can't find a way to pay up, the
results will spill beyond national borders, spreading
economic misery far and wide. [...] |
JERUSALEM : Nearly two dozen
employees of one of Israel's biggest banks have been
arrested following a police investigation into alleged
money laundering worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Police announced the arrests after an undercover operation
of more than a year into a Tel Aviv branch of Hapoalim
bank, one of the wealthiest financial institutions in
the Jewish state. [...] |
Bioterrorism is seen as a real
threat in today's world. But for an attack to cause
significant damage, pathogens are needed that are effective
even when spread over a large area.
That requirement is hard
to meet.
Experts warn that bioterrorism could be an efficient
and deadly weapon in the hands of terrorists, who could
potentially use small amounts of bacteria or viruses
to kill many people over a large area. But Professor
Sucharit Bhakdi, head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology
at the University of Mainz, casts a critical eye on
talk of a serious, imminent threat from biological agents.
"A bioweapon would need
to have a lot of penetrating power, psychologically
as well as economically and militarily," he said.
"And it simply doesn't."
He points out that the dangers
of bioweapons are often played up by a sensation-hungry
media and that the threats such weapons pose are often
referred to as "potential." He backs
up his thesis with an example from the United States,
where letters laced with anthrax were sent through the
mail in 2001.
Five people died then from respiratory anthrax, while
12 or 13 of those infected survived. Though 20 to 30
additional people suffered skin infections, they were
not fatal. Another 50 to 100 people caught the anthrax
virus, but did not become ill. Those
numbers are too small for a "serious threat,"
according to the researcher.
Another view
However, the international police organization Interpol
is of a different opinion.
"Since the anthrax attacks in the US we know that
even a small amount of biological material can have
global effects, even beyond the target area," said
Interpol General Secretary Ronald Noble. The organization
has established a bioterror unit and is holding an international
conference on bioterrorism on March 1 and 2 in Lyon,
France. More than 400 delegates from 120 countries are
taking part, mostly high-ranking police officers.
Interpol has also planned three workshops in the next
few years, in South Africa, Chile and China, where police
and medical personnel will be trained on how to react
to a bioterrorist attack.
"We should allow our imaginations
to run wild and be ready for anything possible,"
Noble said. [...]
Large amounts are needed
The kind of durable, highly infectious pathogens necessary
for a bioweapon, which spread quickly and induce deadly
physical reactions, are difficult to obtain. In their
natural states, most are not suitable for use in weapons,
including anthrax. "Upgrading" these pathogens
for possible use in weapons, is not a task for weekend
scientists working in garage labs.
"Creating weapons-grade anthrax demands the knowledge
of a specialist and special equipment, most
of which is only available in American laboratories,"
Bhakdi said. [...]
How serious is the danger?
One of the largest problems around the manufacturing
of bioweapons is integrating the pathogens into an actual
weapon. For example, with anthrax, the dose needed
in order to infect someone's lungs is relatively high,
somewhere between 8,000 and 50,000 bacteria.
"Anthrax is, in comparison to chemical weapons,
a blunt weapon," said Bhakdi.
If the bacteria are spread among
a large area, a single gust of wind could destroy months
of planning by terrorists.
The most serious threat currently is the small pox virus,
since it is the only virus that has ever been largely
eliminated. [...]
Third place
Despite all the talk about danger and the fears that
the anthrax cases in the US raised, among many professionals
bioweapons only place third
in a ranking of the globe's most serious medical threats.
In first place are flu epidemics or AIDS (which have
killed millions worldwide so far). A similar threat
is posed by highly infections diseases that periodically
make comebacks, such as Ebola or the West Nile virus.
Other dangers include industrial sabotage or lab accidents
that could release large amounts of pathogens as well
as the growing global resistance to antibiotics. |
'My
truth' |
By Giuliana Sgrena
Sunday, March 6, 2005 Posted: 2141 GMT (0541 HKT) |
Editor's Note [CNN]:
The following is a translation of a March 6, 2005, article
by journalist Giuliana Sgrena, reprinted here with permission
from the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto. Sgrena was shot
and wounded by U.S. forces in Iraq shortly after being
freed from captors. A security agent protecting her was
killed.
I'm still in the dark. Friday was the most dramatic
day of my life. I had been in captivity for many days.
I had just spoken with my captors. It had been days they
were telling me I would be released. I was living in waiting
for this moment. They were speaking about things that
only later I would have understood the importance of.
They were speaking about problems "related to transfers."
I learned to understand what was going on by the behavior
of my two guards, the two guards that had me under custody
every day. One in particular showed much attention to
my desires. He was incredibly cheerful. To understand
exactly what was going on I provocatively asked him if
he was happy because I was going or because I was staying.
I was shocked and happy when for the first time he said,
"I only know that you will go, but I don't know when."
To confirm the fact that something new was happening both
of them came into my room and started comforting me and
kidding: "Congratulations they said you are leaving
for Rome." For Rome, that's exactly what they said.
I experienced a strange sensation because that word evoked
in me freedom but also projected in me an immense sense
of emptiness. I understood that it was the most difficult
moment of my kidnapping and that if everything I had just
experienced until then was "certain," now a
huge vacuum of uncertainty was opening, one heavier than
the other. I changed my clothes. They came back: "We'll
take you and don't give any signals of your presence with
us otherwise the Americans could intervene." It was
confirmation that I didn't want to hear; it was altogether
the most happy and most dangerous moment. If we bumped
into someone, meaning American military, there would have
been an exchange of fire. My captors were ready and would
have answered. My eyes had to be covered. I was already
getting used to momentary blindness. What was happening
outside? I only knew that it had rained in Baghdad. The
car was proceeding securely in a mud zone. There was a
driver plus the two captors. I immediately heard something
I didn't want to hear. A helicopter was hovering at low
altitude right in the area that we had stopped. "Be
calm, they will come and look for you...in 10 minutes
they will come looking for." They spoke in Arabic
the whole time, a little bit of French, and a lot in bad
English. Even this time they were speaking that way.
Then they got out of the car. I remained in the condition
of immobility and blindness. My eyes were padded with
cotton, and I had sunglasses on. I was sitting still.
I thought what should I do. I start counting the seconds
that go by between now and the next condition, that of
liberty? I had just started mentally counting when a friendly
voice came to my ears "Giuliana, Giuliana. I am Nicola,
don't worry I spoke to Gabriele Polo (editor in chief
of Il Manifesto). Stay calm. You are free." They
made me take my cotton bandage off, and the dark glasses.
I felt relieved, not for what was happening and I couldn't
understand but for the words of this "Nicola."
He kept on talking and talking, you couldn't contain him,
an avalanche of friendly phrases and jokes. I finally
felt an almost physical consolation, warmth that I had
forgotten for some time.
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full
of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We
all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control
of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe
wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through
would really be a tale I would not be able to tell. Nicola
Calipari sat next to me. The driver twice called the embassy
and in Italy that we were heading towards the airport
that I knew was heavily patrolled by U.S. troops. They
told me that we were less than a kilometer away...when...I
only remember fire. At that point, a rain of fire and
bullets hit us, shutting up forever the cheerful voices
of a few minutes earlier.
The driver started yelling that we were Italians. "We
are Italians, we are Italians." Nicola Calipari threw
himself on me to protect me and immediately, I repeat,
immediately I heard his last breath as he was dying on
me. I must have felt physical pain. I didn't know why.
But then I realized my mind went immediately to the things
the captors had told me. They declared that they were
committed to the fullest to freeing me but I had to be
careful, "the Americans don't want you to go back."
Then when they had told me I considered those words superfluous
and ideological. At that moment they risked acquiring
the flavor of the bitterest of truths, at this time I
cannot tell you the rest.
This was the most dramatic day. But the months that I
spent in captivity probably changed forever my existence.
One month alone with myself, prisoner of my profound certainties.
Every hour was an impious verification of my work, sometimes
they made fun of me, and they even stretch as far as asking
why I wanted to leave, asking me stay. They insisted on
personal relationships. It was them that made me think
of the priorities that too often we cast aside. They were
pointing to family. "Ask your husband for help,"
they would say. And I also said in the first video that
I think you all saw, "My life has changed."
As Iraqi engineer Ra'ad Ali Abdulaziz of the organization
A Bridge For [Baghdad], who had been kidnapped with the
two Simones had told me "my life is not the same
anymore." I didn't understand. Now I know what he
meant. Because I experienced the harshness of truth, it's
difficult proposition (of truth) and the fragility of
those who attempt it.
In the first days of my kidnapping I did not shed a tear.
I was simply furious. I would say in the face of my captors:
"But why do you kidnap me, I'm against the war."
And at that point they would start a ferocious dialogue.
"Yes because you go speak to the people, we would
never kidnap a journalist that remains closed in a hotel
and because the fact that you say you're against the war
could be a decoy." And I would answer almost to provoke
them: "It's easy to kidnap a weak woman like me,
why don't you try with the American military." I
insisted on the fact that they could not ask the Italian
government to withdraw the troops. Their political go-between
could not be the government but the Italian people, who
were and are against the war.
It was a month on a see-saw shifting between strong hope
and moments of great depression. Like when it was a first
Sunday after the Friday they kidnapped me, in the house
in Baghdad where I was kept, and on top of which was a
satellite dish they showed me the Euronews Newscast. There
I saw a huge picture of me hanging from Rome City Hall.
I felt relieved. Right after though the claim by the Jihad
that announced my execution if Italy did not withdraw
the troops arrived. I was terrified. But I immediately
felt reassured that it wasn't them. I didn't have to believe
these announcements, they were "provocative."
Often I asked the captor that from his face I could identify
a good disposition but whom like his colleagues resembled
a soldier: "Tell me the truth. Do you want to kill
me?" Although many times there have been windows
of communications with them. "Come watch a movie
on TV" they would say while a Wahabi roamed around
the house and took care of me. The captors seemed to me
a very religious group, in continuous prayer on the Koran.
But Friday, at the time of the release, the one that looked
the most religious and who woke up every morning at 5
a.m. to pray incredibly congratulated me shaking my hand,
a behavior unusual for an Islamic fundamentalist -- and
he would add "if you behave yourself you will leave
immediately." Then an almost funny incident. One
of the two captors came to me surprised both because the
TV was showing big posters of me in European cities and
also for Totti. Yes Totti. He declared he was a fan of
the Roma soccer team and he was shocked that his favorite
player went to play with the writing "Liberate Giuliana"
on his T-shirt.
I lived in an enclave in which I had no more certainties.
I found myself profoundly weak. I failed in my certainties;
I said that we had to tell about that dirty war. And I
found myself in the alternative either to stay in the
hotel and wait or to end up kidnapped because of my work.
We don't want anyone else anymore. The kidnappers would
tell me. But I wanted to tell about the bloodbath in Fallujah
from the words of the refugees. And that morning the refugees,
or some of their leaders would not listen to me. I had
in front of me the accurate confirmation of the analysis
of what the Iraqi society had become as a result of the
war and they would throw their truth in my face: "We
don't want anybody why didn't you stay in your home. What
can this interview do for us?" The worse collateral
effect, the war that kills communication was falling on
me. To me, I who had risked everything, challenging the
Italian government who didn't want journalists to reach
Iraq and the Americans who don't want our work to be witnessed
of what really became of that country with the war and
notwithstanding that which they call elections. Now I
ask myself. Is their refusal a failure? |
Italians bade an emotional
farewell yesterday to the senior intelligence officer
killed by US troops in Iraq last week as officials in
Rome and Washington tried to dampen smouldering resentment
over his death. [...]
On Sunday, Ms Sgrena said that she did not discount the
possibility that the car carrying them to Baghdad airport
had been targeted by the Americans because of their opposition
to negotiating with kidnappers.
The White House rejected Ms Sgrena's claims. "I
think it's absurd to make any such suggestion that our
men and women in uniform deliberately targeted innocent
civil ians. "That's just absurd," said spokesman
Scott McClellan.
However the Third Infantry Division, whose troops include
those that fired on the Italians' car last Friday, came
under investigation in April last year for opening fire
on carloads of Iraqi women and children at checkpoints,
according to US army documents obtained by the Guardian.
"The order was given to shoot
anything that moves, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally,"
one soldier told the US army investigator.
One soldier described shooting women and children in
cars "if they didn't respond to the signs, the presence
of troops or warning shots". [...]
Prosecutors in Rome, who have opened an inquiry into
Calipari's death, announced last night that Italian officials
in Iraq had taken possession of the car in which he was
travelling with Ms Sgrena when he was killed.
They said that it would be flown back to Italy for a
forensic examination. Their investigation continues to
be classified as a murder inquiry.
|
Italy's foreign minister
has demanded the US "identify and punish" those
responsible for the death of an Italian intelligence agent
in Iraq.
Gianfranco Fini said the US and Italy had different versions
of what happened to Nicola Calipari, who died under US
fire while escorting a freed hostage.
The US says shots were fired because
the vehicle was speeding and did not heed troops' warnings
for it to stop.
But Mr Fini said the car was travelling
at no more than 40km per hour.
Calipari had also made "all the
necessary contacts" with US and Italian officials
about the hostage's release and the journey to the airport,
he added.
The incident has intensified the already strong Italian
opposition to the country's military presence in Iraq
and put intense pressure on Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's
government to find answers.
The BBC's Tamsin Smith in Rome says Mr Fini's comments,
which have pre-empted an investigation into the incident,
were very much for domestic consumption.
Political observers in Rome say there is a serious problem
of jurisdiction in any attempt to bring criminal proceedings,
as the shooting took place in an area under US military
control in a third country.
Calipari has become a national hero in Italy, and thousands
came out onto the streets on Monday to applaud the funeral
cortege.
'Truth and justice'
Mr Fini said the vehicle carrying the released hostage
and agents was well-lit to facilitate checks.
However, it stopped after a powerful light was shone
on it from the roadside and the shooting began immediately,
without warning, he said.
A volley of shots from automatic weapons followed, lasting
10-15 seconds, the foreign minister added.
The occupants of the vehicle were only
identified by a second agent who was pulled from the car
alive, he said.
Mr Fini did, however, reject the allegation made by freed
hostage Giuliana Sgrena that the car was deliberately
targeted as "groundless".
"We ask for truth and justice," he said. "We
hope that within the next few hours this affirmed wish
for loyal co-operation will yield its first major concrete
result."
"We hope that this is not an opportunity to whip
up political campaigns and to sow anti-American sentiment
in public opinion, which certainly have no reason to exist."
Tuesday's Washington Times newspaper quoted a Pentagon
memo as saying the Italian security forces appeared to
have made no prior arrangement for Mr Sgrena's transfer
to the airport.
It added that US troops are trained to fire on erratic
speeding vehicles, a description which corresponds to
the US version of events.
"This is war," the memo was quoted as saying.
"About 500 American service members have been killed
by hostile fire while operating on Iraqi streets and highways."
|
The US media have treated
with care allegations by freed Italian hostage Giuliana
Sgrena that the American military deliberately shot at her.
But they have used the incident, in which Italian intelligence
officer Nicola Calipari was killed, to highlight the frequency
of shootings at checkpoints in Iraq and the anger that
it has incited among average Iraqis.
Human rights groups have described the US military rules
of engagement at checkpoints as too permissive.
But the US military defends its policies, saying that
troops must be able to protect themselves in the face
of widespread suicide bombings.
CNN reported that there was no advance warning that Ms
Sgrena and Mr Calipari would be travelling down the dangerous
road to the airport in Baghdad.
But questions remained as to whether there was some co-ordination
between higher-level Italian and US officials that had
not been communicated to the troops in the area.
CNN's Rome bureau chief Alessio Vinci said: "[Ms
Sgrena] was not ruling out the possibility that the Americans
may have targeted her on purpose, because the US opposed
negotiating with kidnappers."
But he said she could not provide evidence to support
her claims.
Retired US Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC military
analyst, expressed great scepticism with respect to Ms
Sgrena's claims that no warning was giving.
"It's hard to believe the Italian
journalist," he said, and he added: "Without
getting too political here, she works for a Communist
newspaper."
And he said that no matter the rules
of the engagement the driver of the car should have stopped
when armed troops ordered it.
"At the end of the day, when armed
troops tell you to stop, you are supposed to stop, or
else they're going to shoot you up," he said.
R Jeffrey Smith and Ann Scott Tyson of the Washington
Post wrote that the shooting was "one of many incidents
in which civilians have been killed by mistake at checkpoints
in Iraq, including local police officers, women and children,
according to military records, US officials and human
rights groups."
In many cases, it has emerged after the incidents that
Iraqis who had been fired on were not suicide bombers
or others involved in the insurgency.
And the US troops "did so while operating under
rules of engagement that the military has classified and
under a legal doctrine that grants US troops immunity
from civil liability for misjudgement," the Post
said.
Human rights groups have accused the US military of taking
inadequate steps to protect the safety of civilians.
'Widespread anger'
John Burns of the New York Times said that the killing
of Mr Calipari and the wounding of Ms Sgrena highlighted
one of the most contentious aspects of the US military
presence in Iraq.
"Next to the scandal of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib,
no other aspect of the American military presence in Iraq
has caused such widespread dismay and anger among Iraqis,
judging by their frequent outbursts on the subject,"
Mr Burns wrote.
The rules of engagement allow for US forces to open fire
whenever they believe "their unit may be at risk
of suicide bombings or other insurgent attacks",
he added.
Average Iraqis say it is not clear to them what constitutes
threatening behaviour - and they have called on the US
military to launch a public information campaign to help
cut down on the incidents.
US and Iraqi officials have no figures
on the casualties, but there are several incidents at
US checkpoints every day, according to reports compiled
by Western security companies.
As in the case of Ms Sgrena, accounts
vary widely in most of the checkpoint incidents.
However, unlike the politically sensitive incident involving
the Italian journalist, few of the
incidents involving Iraqi civilians are ever formally
investigated, Mr Burns noted.
"The American soldiers know that circumstances erupt
in which a second's hesitation can mean death, and say
civilian deaths are a regrettable but inevitable consequence
of a war in which suicide bombers have been the insurgents'
most deadly weapon," Mr Burns wrote. |
The suicide car bomb attack in
the Iraqi town of Hilla on Monday has produced the greatest
death toll from a single such incident since the US
invasion toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein nearly
two years ago. Those targeted in the blast were young
men seeking medical tests needed to join the US-organized
Iraqi police and military. The victims, who numbered
as many as 125 dead and at least 130 more wounded, included
passers-by and people shopping in a nearby market.
The attack in Hilla - a predominantly Shiite city
- is only the latest and bloodiest in a string of terrorist
attacks that have continued to escalate over the past
two months. According to a count provided by the Associated
Press, 234 people were killed and 429 wounded in some
55 separate attacks in January. The death toll rose
to 311 while the number of injured increased to 433
as a result of 38 such attacks in February.
This slaughter of Iraqi non-combatants
- including working class youth lured into joining the
police and army by the prospect of a job and salary
in a country where the majority is jobless and destitute
- is a political atrocity and deserves to be condemned.
This is not a question of mere moral outrage. These
are political crimes. Far from undermining the illegal
American occupation of Iraq, the principal outcome of
such attacks is deeper political confusion among the
masses, which can lead to debilitating sectarian conflicts.
The opposition of the World Socialist Web Site to
terrorist bombings has nothing in common with the hypocritical
denunciations of the Hilla bombing and similar attacks
by the Bush administration and the big business media,
whose sole aim is to justify US imperialism's crimes
in Iraq.
Few bother recalling that Hilla is no stranger to
mass carnage, having suffered one of the bloodiest attacks
at the beginning of the US war on Iraq. On
April 1, 2003, the US military targeted the town with
cluster bombs, killing at least 60 people, many of them
children, and leaving hundreds more wounded.
The use of this weapon constituted another war crime
in a continuing criminal war.
Washington is ultimately responsible
not just for the killing conducted by its own military
forces - which accounts for the bulk of the tens of
thousands who have died since the US invasion - but
for all of the bloodshed in Iraq. This is indisputably
true from the standpoint of international law, as the
US is an occupying power. But more fundamentally,
the American war and occupation, coming on top of a
decade of devastating economic sanctions, have decimated
Iraqi society, provoking resistance while reducing Iraq
to a state of social and economic disintegration.
The crimes of US imperialism, however, in no way justify
tactics that result in the pointless slaughter of Iraqis
- including many who undoubtedly are opponents of the
American occupation.
While armed struggle is a legitimate and inevitable
tactic in the struggle against foreign military occupation,
it is not an end in itself and cannot take the place
of a political program that educates, guides and inspires
masses of people. There is, moreover, a profound link
between ends and means. Just
as the utterly predatory objectives of the Iraqi occupation
find expression in the sadistic practices carried out
by the United States at Abu Ghraib, the mass killings
of Iraqis expose the essentially reactionary perspective
of the political forces responsible for the suicide
bombings. It is noteworthy that these attacks
are conducted without even a suggestion that they are
aimed at winning the population to a particular political
platform or galvanizing popular opposition to the US
colonialist presence in Iraq.
The struggles of the anti-colonial movements in an
earlier epoch were unquestionably accompanied by violence,
including, as in the case of Algeria, the utilization
of terrorist bombings. But these actions were carried
out by movements that advanced political programs or
demands that - with all the limitations and illusions
of bourgeois nationalism - were presented to the masses
to win their support.
The organizers of these atrocities
make no pretense of appealing to widespread discontent
and political unrest, or attempting to tap into the
broad opposition to US imperialism that predominates
throughout the region as a whole. Rather, they
cynically exploit the anger, spirit of self-sacrifice,
and genuine hatred of oppression of young men and women
by using them as cannon fodder in an ignoble venture.
These tactics are not based
on a struggle to defeat imperialism. They are
conducted in contempt of the Iraqi masses and the deep
historical traditions of working class struggle in Iraq.
They serve to undermine social consciousness and sow
political confusion.
An Islamist web site reported that a group calling
itself the Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq
had claimed responsibility for the Hilla bombing. Whether
the group even exists as more than a name is far from
clear.
It cannot be excluded that
forces loyal to pro-American stooges like Ahmed Chalabi
and Iyad Allawi would carry out such provocations in
order to foment internecine violence, with the aim of
preventing the ascension of a government from which
they are excluded, as well
as to provide a continued justification for the US military
occupation upon which they depend.
It is in the nature of such terrorist bombings that
the precise identity of their organizers and the character
of their political aims are not entirely discernible.
Bombings can be carried out in
the name of a non-existent organization to further hidden
agendas, including those of the CIA itself.
But these tactics are by no means foreign to either
the Islamist forces or the remnants of the Iraqi Baathist
regime. Both have played a significant
role in misdirecting a broad resistance to US occupation
that has won the support of not only many Iraqis, but
peoples throughout the Middle East.
Neither Baathists nor Islamists
represent the interests of the working class and oppressed.
The Baathist regime, like secular bourgeois nationalism
throughout the Arab world, sacrificed the social needs
and basic democratic rights of the Iraqi people to further
the interests of a ruling elite. It fell victim to the
imperialist power that it previously looked to for support.
The Islamists owe their rise primarily to this historic
failure of bourgeois nationalism. They were supported
by Washington in attacking the Soviet-backed regime
in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and they continue to enjoy
at least tacit support from elements within the Saudi
elite and other regimes in the region, which are loath
to see the emergence of a Shiite-dominated state in
Iraq. Both the Baathists and Islamists would be prepared
to do a deal with imperialism if it furthered their
own narrow interests.
These are the retrograde social ends that are pursued
through the criminal means of suicide bombings against
Iraqi civilians. Neither of these
forces is capable of winning mass support - either
for the restoration of the Baathist regime or the imposition
of a reactionary Islamic utopia like that of the Taliban
in Afghanistan or the Mullahs in Iran.
Underlying these methods - to the extent that they
are not the result of an imperialist provocation or
a deliberate attempt to provoke
an ethnic civil war - is a profound pessimism
that pervades both these forces and their political
apologists. They categorically reject the possibility
of a unified struggle against imperialism based on the
conscious political mobilization of the Iraqi masses.
[...]
The perverse effect of the bombing campaign is that
even the possibility of mass
mobilizations is undermined by the ever-present threat
that they will be met with anonymous violence.
The emergence of a genuinely independent movement
of Iraqi working people can take place only through
an irreconcilable struggle against the forces that have
historically held the Iraqi working class back. These
include the gangsters of the Baathist regime, the religious-based
movements that foster extreme political backwardness,
and the Iraqi Communist Party, which bears a particular
responsibility for the present dilemma confronting the
workers of Iraq. [...]
A new political party of the Iraqi working class must
be built based upon the historic and often tragic experiences
of the international socialist and anti-imperialist
struggles of the twentieth century. There is no alternative
to the construction of a revolutionary political party
of the working class, based on an internationalist perspective.
|
The city was quiet but the soldiers
sitting and swaying inside the Stryker were animated
by their favourite debate: was it better to be five
metres or 20 metres from an explosion?
The front gunner belonged to the 20-metre school,
figuring the greater distance reduced your chances of
losing limbs to the blast. The two rear gunners scoffed
and said that would increase the odds of being hit by
shrapnel, which fanned upwards and outwards.
Five months of patrolling Mosul had furnished evidence
for both views and the discussion was as well-worn as
the Stryker's tyres.
Sergeant David Phillips, 23, sighed and patted his
flak jacket. "I just want
to stay alive and go home with all my body parts."
He spoke for 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq.
Yesterday the number of US military deaths since the
March 2003 invasion crept over 1,500. [...]
The daily drip of US casualties passes almost unnoticed
now, a footnote to the wider slaughter of Iraqis: five
policemen killed in two car bombs yesterday, 13 soldiers
killed on Wednesday, a judge on Tuesday, at least 115
police and army recruits and civilians on Monday. Some
18,000 civilians are estimated to have died.
Yesterday's headlines were about the renewal of Iraq's
state of emergency, fresh attacks on oil pipelines,
and deadlock between Shias and Kurds over forming a
new government.
The men of Bravo company, an infantry unit which rides
in the armoured Stryker vehicles of 321 Battalion in
Mosul, did not care that since George Bush's re-election
the artificial limbs and flag-draped coffins of US troops
have faded in political significance. For them, it was
personal.
"I don't tell my mom or
my wife that we drive up and down streets getting blown
up every day. They'd just worry all the time. I tell
them we sit in the base and do the odd mission,"
said Sgt Nathan Purdy, who is 23.
A week embedded with Bravo company, midway through
a year-long stint in an insurgent stronghold, showed
a group of men with good morale and determination to
catch "bad guys" but divided over the war
and frustrated by an elusive enemy. [...]
The Iraqi army was improving thanks to joint operations
and would soon take half of the responsibility of securing
the city. Asked about the police
force he rolled his eyes, but speculated that there
was enough progress for US forces to leave within three
years. His desk had tomes on Islam and a "Don't
mess with Texas" sticker. [...]
Drive-by shootings have wounded several in the unit
but the big fear is roadside bombs
which according to the Pentagon accounted for 56% of
all US battle deaths in the first two months of this
year. They are hidden
in rubbish bags, animal carcasses, holes, rubble, cars
and carts, turning every object into a potential killer.
A suicide car bomber rammed and immolated one of the
battalion's Strykers but all the occupants survived,
prompting reverence for the eight-wheel, 23-tonne monsters.
A tip about weapons caches this week led to a midnight
mission to dig up a lawn. It yielded nothing.
"F*cking gardeners - what are we doing here?"
asked one private. "And tomorrow we're giving out
candy to kids again," replied his friend. "We
didn't train for this." |
PARIS - The last three French nationals
held prisoner by US authorities at the Guantanamo Bay
military base in Cuba were returned to France and detained,
the Paris prosecutors' office said.
An agreement in principle on the release
of Mustaq Ali Patel, Ridouane Khalid and Khaled Ben
Mustafa, was reached last month during the visit of
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Paris.
Upon their return, the three men were taken into custody
on the orders of anti-terrorism magistrates Jean-Louis
Brugiere and Jean-Francois Ricard as part of "investigations
into criminal association relating to terrorist activities,"
said a statement from the prosecutors' office.
The three arrived on a French military plane on Monday
evening, according to a source familiar with the case.
|
TORONTO - Police and drivers
could only watch Sunday night as a father killed himself
and his 5-year-old daughter was injured in a plunge
from a busy highway overpass.
"The fact that the little girl wasn't hit by
a car is a miracle," officer Brian O'Connor said
at a news conference.
"It does not appear that she has any broken bones.
She was talkative at the hospital."
The girl has some internal bleeding but that has stopped,
he added.
Police said it was not immediately clear whether the
man threw the girl off the overpass or had her in his
arms when he jumped. [...]
"This guy was a loaded missile. He was going
to kill himself and he was going to take his daughter
to punish his wife for whatever he thought she had done
wrong in the relationship. [...] |
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A railcar
leaking toxic chemicals sent plumes of gas into the
air Sunday and forced the evacuation of more than 6,000
people.
Authorities evacuated a one-kilometre-square area
and closed at least nine roads after the leak was discovered
by crews loading chemicals into a parked railcar in
South Salt Lake.
"We're speculating that the liner in the railcar
must have failed," Union Pacific spokesman John
Bromley said.
No injuries were reported.
The chemicals involved - hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric
acid and nitric acid - can cause severe burns if they
come into direct contact with skin or eyes.
Cleanup crews were working to transfer the chemicals
to tankers. |
(New Zealand) - Temperatures
swung between extremes during the three months of summer,
with the country experiencing
the coldest December since 1945 but the eighth warmest
February on record. [...] |
Greenhouse gases are warming our
oceans, changing their chemistry and threatening rainfall
patterns that provide the planet with its fresh water,
scientists say.
The gases that cause global warming sometimes are
given as factors in problems ranging from the strength
of hurricanes to altered wildlife habitats. But in what
may be the most comprehensive look yet at the oceans,
a group of researchers recently told a scientific conference
that the marine effect is just as severe.
"In terms of global warming, the oceans are where
the action is," said Tim Barnett, an oceanographer
at the Scripps Oceanographic Institution. "The
oceans are sort of a canary in the coal mine."
The 1990s turned out to be the warmest decade in the
past 1,000 years, experts say. [...] |
Readers
who wish to know more about who we are and what we do may visit
our portal site Quantum
Future
Remember,
we need your help to collect information on what is going on in
your part of the world!
We also need help to keep
the Signs of the Times online.
Send
your comments and article suggestions to us
Fair Use Policy Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.
|